JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J

1 This petition by the petitioner, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order and judgment dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in T.A. No. 01/2021 (SWP No. 1353/2004) titled Rajinder Singh vs Union of India and others, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the T.A./petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of Order No. 308/18/PC/98 dated 04.12.1998 issued by the respondents.

2 Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps on 29.12.1992 and attested on 31.12.1994 as a Sepoy. In his short span of less than six (06) years of service, he was awarded three (03) red ink entries, including the punishment of Summary Court Martial, by different Commanding Officers of different units. On the allegation of misbehaviour and violation of the modesty of a lady officer, the petitioner was served with charges vide charge-sheet dated 21.11.1998 for commission of offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner was tried by Summary Court Martial and, vide order dated 01.12.1998, was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and dismissal from service in terms of order dated 04.12.1998. It is this order which was called in question by the petitioner before this Court in SWP No. 1353, which, on transfer to the Tribunal, was registered as T.A. No. 01/2021.

3 The impugned order of imposing punishment upon trial by Summary Court Martial was assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the Summary Court Martial was not convened as per the procedure prescribed by Section 120(2) of the Act and that there was no reference made to the Judge Advocate General’s Department under Regulation 359 of the Army Regulations. There were other allegations in the petition that the petitioner was not given fair treatment during the Summary Court Martial proceedings, inasmuch as he was neither permitted to have a counsel or friend of his choice to defend him nor was he afforded a fair opportunity of being heard. The petitioner also contended before the Tribunal that the mandatory Court of Inquiry in terms of Rule 177 of the Army Rules was not conducted before ordering/convening the Summary Court Martial. It was also alleged that the plea of guilty was not recorded by following the procedure and safeguards prescribed under Rule 115 of the Army Rules. In short, the grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the entire proceedings, right from convening of the Summary Court Martial to recording of plea and awarding of sentence, were vitiated, being conducted in sheer violation of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

4 The T.A./petition was contested by the respondents herein by filing a detailed reply. It was contended that the Summary Court Martial was held as per the Rules and Regulations in vogue. The petitioner was charged under Section 69 of the Act, i.e., for committing a civil offence of using criminal force upon a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The proceedings were initiated and concluded strictly as per the provisions of law and the petitioner never objected either to the convening of the Summary Court Martial or to the proceedings conducted therein. The petitioner never asked for copies of the proceedings during or after completion of the Court Martial proceedings. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend the charge. The witnesses were recorded in his presence and he was given ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which he, however, declined. The summary of evidence was recorded as per Rule 23 of the Army Rules, in which also he was given liberty to cross-examine each prosecution witness. It was specifically pleaded by the respondents in their reply affidavit that when the charge was read ov